@ 101, et al.: If what you want is good sex that has the potential to keep getting better because you and your partners know each other's responses, "mehs," turn-ons, limits, etc. then it behooves you to forge relationships with a group of casual sex partners whom you'll see repeatedly, get to know, perhaps get to like as people even though you may see them only for the specified purpose of having sex.

If what you want is to see yourself as a Casanova, or to add ever more notches to your bedpost, you do what DDD is doing. It's a different kind of thrill. It satisfies in one aspect if what you want is the validation you get from confirming that you are sexually attractive to a lot of people--and that is a very important psychological need for a lot of people. It does not necessarily lead to especially fulfilling sex (at least if you have any non-traditional kinks or turn ons, and for a lot of women, many of whom have a hard time reaching orgasm during the one-night stand), and if you're a less than very attractive man, it can be hard to sustain the kind of success DDD just saw.
It is a trade off.

@Holmes, @CMD, etc. DDD's emphasis on quantity over quality

Who says he isn't getting both? And seducing a woman is its own reward, apart from the quality of the sex.

I get it - the guy is bragging, so naturally we all want to knock him down. That was my first impulse, too. But if he really is getting as much trim as he says he is, I say good for him, someone has to keep the dream alive.

@109: Wasn't that what Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech was all about?

Not ever a dream I had Sean.
He's a TomCat.
And I question the legitimacy of calling himself poly.

BTW, discussion still going strong with some new developments (LateBloomer has been 86'ed and had to change his identity) over at last week's comment thread ("The Past is Never Dead").

@111: Lava, are you calling DDD a poly bastard?

@nocutename: Funny, it seems the SLOG police ultimate agreed with LateBloomer's point about words and their history.

LateBloomer's a great guy, thoughtful, civil, and he was making a reductio ad absurdum argument, not being malicious. His blocking is a victory for stupidity.

@114: Yup. Like parental software that blocks websites for "sexual content," and prohibited people from looking up sites having to do with breastfeeding because "breasts."

sean @ 109
I presented this position to highlight a point regarding sex addiction.
In a previous one I alluded to the expert’s thigh of relief that it’s only SAA lingo he's using and nothing else SAA-related, because the dude seems to be happy and self accepting.
I don't see the contradiction.

Late Great login troubles-
I had the same issue few days ago, prompting conspiracy theories starring a shrewd business woman who's out there to sell tons of merchandise, then managed to get back by following "forgot your password"

Did Late get blocked somewhere?

For him to be a poly bastard, Nocute. He'd have to poly first.

Academy Award time, then. I sure hope some of those film people say boo about Trump. This is how it would have started in Germany. Those in the Arts not believing such a buffoon could gain power.

Lava: DDD does have a "primary," and he didn't rule out the possibility of having other partners he's fucked more than once, so he may well be able to accurately claim he's poly. The sort of poly who gives the rest of us a bad name, but still. Those do of course exist.

And what is the story with Trump's wife? She is never seen next to him. What did she do..
Fan. He may not explicitly say he doesn't have relationships with the passing parade. I'm just assuming that.
As the only mention of his primary, is to say he uses condoms with the rest.. I don't perceive an emotional connection here, either.
He's a single man who fucks lots of women. One at least on a regular basis.

@123: Hunter, I copied and pasted what I had read. Clearly, I didn't read enough, or put enough time in to paste even more text. I assure you anything I missed was inadvertent. I wasn't being duplicitous. But I'm getting tired of your pointless references to my ability or wont to copy and paste amounts of text that you find somehow not de rigueur, or de trop (is that enough French for me to pass muster for what constitutes "educated and respectful for you, or is it too much, proving that I'm obnoxious?). And with this new charge that because I didn't do something you would do, I am "being deceptive," you're beginning to sound like a poster who calls people--usually women--with whom he doesn't agree "liars" and "shitstains."

I also don't why you are trying to drag this battle over what "cuckold" is on and on and on. For one, thing, what's it to you?

I don't know why you're trying to resurrect the kind of stupid battle you had with mydriasis years ago, but I haven't tried to engage in that fight the way she did. I haven't used every possible opportunity to belittle you or make any distaste I may feel for you (generally none; occasionally a bit) based on our differing responses to particular issues bleed into every exchange between us. If you read all of last week's comments, you'll see I offered you an olive branch @229. Your response @232 was to sneer at my pasting a large swath of text--but apparently now the problem is that by only going 14 words in to one definition (which was all I saw on my initial screen), I wasn't somehow prolific enough.
In any case, I have no desire to participate or to drag the readers of these comment threads into a prolonged insult and baiting exchange. I have better uses for my energy and I don't like to create a world of discord. So I'll say it more clearly: I would like to apologize for anything I said--intentional and unintentional--to offend you in the past and I would like us to attempt a more civil relationship going forward.

@125: P.S. Hunter, regardless of whether you do the same or not, I intend to be as civil to you as I can be.

Sucked in, nocute. Although under these circumstances, maybe not the best phrase I could have used. Oh, I know.
Don't feed the troll.
Seriously, has Late been banned?
I missed whatever happened.

Dan better not have banned Late. He has been getting pesky.
It's a hard call, trying to talk with married men. I know how hard the slog is with child rearing. Just gotta find ways to have fun with it. Leaving, so many problems. If there is love still there, then doing those years is much easier with two.
Hi Late. Love you.

Not to say those years aren't hard for women; for mothers, for wives.
I was never tempted to stray, he got swayed here and there, who has the time? Children, several of them, are 24/7 jobs, then the real world stuff.
I had no time for affairs.

Testing, testing.

Oh good! Okay, it was just a technical glitch, and I was too daft to deal with it. Thanks for the fix. And thanks for the kind words too everyone.

So, uh...BiDanFan? @106--"Random sex is better than no sex, if it's all you can get"? Did you really just say that?

Interesting...

What's wrong with guts? Everyone has guts. It's gender neutral. If you feel like being fancy, you can say that someone has intestinal fortitude!

Hunter @123: "What bothered me was Bi's continuing the meme that the Urban Dictionary is definitive (I don't know how serious she is about this)"
Not at all. I couldn't find "compersion" in other online dictionaries. I'm joking about it being "definitive" because Dan relied so heavily on it to "prove" blumpkins are inherently sexist, and if this is Dan's playground, we play by Dan's rules, right?

Hunter @124: "He fucks her bare, and all other women with a rubber? I think that suggests a lot of emotional connection-- or at least decency toward his partner."
Speaking as a poly who is fluid bonded with one of my partners, it is not at all decent to fuck five strangers in five days and then fuck someone else without a condom. Condoms do not provide 100% protection against the transmission of STI's. If your stable of other partners is more or less, er, stable, then you can be reasonably certain you're not out picking something else up to bring home to someone you supposedly love. (Though you should still get tested regularly.) I personally would NOT have unprotected sex with anyone who was fucking that many randos, whether they were conscientious with the condoms or not.

Lava @129: I don't think it's Dan who does the comment moderating. He's got more important things to do.

Late @132: Welcome back! Yes, I did say that random sex is better than no sex. What's interesting about that? (Are you possibly harkening back to the discussion where I disputed that women are "lucky" to be able to get casual sex, because casual sex is usually unsatisfying? Consider this, then: Men are pretty much always able to get sex with a sex worker, who at minimum is going to be reasonably good-looking and duty bound to satisfy her customer. These are not qualities women are guaranteed with the type of casual sex we can easily get. Would you also say that reluctant sex once a week with one's un-horny wife is better than no sex? I bet the men who are getting this kind of sex would say so. Doesn't mean it feels terribly "lucky" if that's all that's available.)

Fan. You have no idea who kicks people off these threads. And Dan is around, checking what's going down.
Can't women find sex workers? Not the same number available for women as there are for men, to be sure.
Is any sex better than no sex; week after week having sex with someone who doesn't want it, sounds like a soul destroying situation.

omg. Wasn't LeoD getting an Oscar such a surprise. Chris Rock spoke to the issue of race in films with a lascerating tongue. He never mentioned how fascist the country has become.
Congrats to the MadMax mob.

Lava @135: Is any sex better than no sex? That's entirely subjective. It depends on how high your sex drive is, the nature of the "any sex," the presence or absence of alternatives, and how satisfying one personally finds masturbation, among other factors I'm certain I've omitted. Sadly I am off on holiday this week so I will be unable to continue the debate. I am actually leaving my laptop at home! Enjoy your week kiddies, I'll be back to chime in on Wednesday's column in due course.

Roger Federer apparently got to attend this year. Strange that both he and Novak Djokovic seem such natural fits for the event, although for almost completely different reasons.

BiDanFan, I could be remembering things wrong, but I could swear that my position in that debate was also along the lines of "Random sex is better than no sex." It was my view that the decent thing to do, if you have access to random sex, is to acknowledge that that is a nice thing, inasmuch as it beats not being able to get laid. If I recall correctly, you took a dissenting view, insisting that having access to something you don't value is nothing to feel grateful about. Then nocute and EricaP took me into a dark corner of the bar and took turns laying the boots to me, and after spitting out a couple of teeth I conceded the point, and crawled home on my hands and knees. At least I think that's how it went down.

LateBloomer,

Don’t forget me! I was there with boots too!

I feel so wimpy. I thought I was getting in some vicious kicks and I made no impression at all? Ouch.

Alison, I assumed you were the one who followed me outside and got in a few good ones as I was crawling away. I couldn't see very well, my eyes were swollen shut.

Have a great holiday unplugged BDF!

@LateBloomer: So glad to hear it was only a technical glitch. (Should have been obvious since they didn't delete your comment, as @Hunter pointed out.)

Mr Bloomer - Not funny, though it might go over well at Jezebel.

*****

Ms Lava - Apparently he was drinking tequila. He's recovering from surgery, so that he's likely not training much for a short time (he's not playing again until clay season).

Venn, well. A drink for a tennis pro, I guess. All of a sudden the shoebox of Hollywood seems a little off kilter. What with thousands of Syrian refugees sitting by roadsides. And wasn't LeoD just a peach? Saving the planet and all, singlehanded.

Shoebox wasn't my choice. My offsider, the iPhone, picked it. As I've promptly forgotten what my choice was, and I like iPhone's take.. I'll stick with it.

Just being silly, Venn. The discussion was actually quite civil. I thought my recap of it was sounding a bit dull and needed a little extra color. Sorry if the bar brawl imagery troubled you.

@139: What you're noticing is that the bullshit recedes a little whenever it isn't currently needed to deny having privilege.

Any time people think it won't lead to our own privilege being questioned, everyone is perfectly happy to admit how awesome our privileges are. But they'll pivot back to blatantly lying about it as soon as you point out that their privileges are pretty damned nice to have, and not so nice not to have. Anything to keep the lower castes from getting uppity, after all.

Ah, the old hetero-males are the lower caste trope again? The uppity remark was a nice touch. An allusion to your slave brethren amirite?

Remind me - this whole woe is me routine is based on the fact that women can have sex with randos somewhat easier than men can - and that one advantage somehow makes them the ruling class. Meanwhile the poor powerless menz are relegated to fixing their toilets, taking out their trash, and licking their stilettos...

I don't know how you endure it!

Point of order @123: That was me with the ellipsis, Hunter. It was all I needed of the definition to prove my point about inadequacy, considering one of the four words quoted was "inadequate". But the rest of the definition reinforced that point and then some, so...no, my quote was not misleading. (And contrary to what you said, nocutename did post the entire definition a little further on in the thread.)

In other words, I am right. Again. It's just crazy how this keeps happening.

You think it's some sort of privilege that most men, a lot of men, whatever.. Will fuck anything that moves? And yes, sometimes even people blantantly contradict themselves.
Late did pull Fan up on that.
It is hard to give up
Privilege, I'm sure you feel that. We all cover some truths, because we are lazy or greedy or, or.
You aren't from India. You have no experience of being in a lower caste.
Go fight the rich bastards who will shoot you dead rather than give up an iota of their privilege; Fan being inconsistent here, isn't one of those people.

So continuing to muse out loud to BiDanFan, who of course is no longer here to respond, which makes for my kind of discussion...

Thinking back to our debate, I wonder if the problem was that I didn't make it clear that, to me, when I say the ability to have random sex is much better than not being able to get laid at all, rando sex by definition means rando sex with someone you find at least somewhat interesting and/or attractive. And then BiDanFan might say, "I hope you appreciate how much that narrows down the field for a discerning woman." And I'd say, "Yes, but I still think that puts a woman's opportunities out ahead of a man's by a country mile," and then someone would add, "I think you're not taking into account how fucking repulsive most straight men are," and I'd be all, "Well maybe the problem isn't the men, maybe the problem is your face, monkey butt," and then nocute would be like, "Hey! Shut your cakehole over there you entitled piece of small-town hick!" and I'd say, "Easy now, let's not..." but by then my calm voice of reason would be too late as the sloggers start reaching for the pool cues and throwing people through windows....

Oops. Sorry, Venn.

I think I've been a little too inspired by the republican primaries.

Hunter: Thank You.
LateBloomer: I didn't know you were from a small town! (And I'd say "shut your pie hole," not "shut your cake hole.")

This me, the former (and hope to someday again be) nocutename (like the Once and Future King), now renamed Iwasnocutename.

Late @139: Hello! Checking back in.

If you agree "random sex is better than no sex", then you'll also agree with my assertion that "reluctant sex with your wife once a week is better than no sex." Right?

Both of these things, however, may be only marginally better than no sex. And some people, for instance those with low sex drives or sex-negative programming or who don't orgasm from intercourse[1], would disagree that they are better than no sex. So random sex may be better than no sex in the same way that a stale crust of bread is better than no food. But the person who only has a stale crust of bread would hardly describe themselves as "lucky" when what they want is a decent, tasty meal. Forcing women to admit they are "lucky" to have access to what they don't want is not going to work -- and it's not what I've just admitted. You're correct that I would indeed say that women do have easy access to random sex, but only a certain kind of random sex, i.e. sex with men (which doesn't help if you are a lesbian) that you're probably not attracted to (which doesn't help full stop) which is less likely to be satisfying (see footnote 1).

Yes, sex with random people one is attracted to is, in my opinion, better than no sex. But random sex with people I am attracted to is no more forthcoming than the kind of sex men can easily get, i.e. sex with sex workers. So women are no luckier in the access-to-any-sex-whatsoever stakes than men are.

[1] Randoms are far less likely to put in the effort to make a woman come by other means.

Hunter @149: I've made three drafts of an answer to your question. I think it's just too simple. I'd answer, In some ways yes, in other ways no. Afraid that's the best I can do without going into far more detail than anyone cares to read! Obviously, anyone who's had condomed sex and condomless sex is aware that there is a closer connection without a layer of latex between you. But there are many other ways to forge connections in a relationship, both sexual and non-sexual. So it can't just be simplified down to "the closest relationship is the one where you're not using condoms."

The clit is a pleasure organ, nothing else. I don't know why men choose to equate such a delicate portion of their anatomy as the scrotal sack with having guts. As a women I'd opt for: "She's got vagina!" Or, "She's got vag!" That there is one, freakin' tough piece of anatomy. And yes, I know I'm not the first to point that out.

Rare possibility: sometimes methamphetamine is prescribed for treatment resistant depression, depression overlapping with ADD or a sleep disorder, or to combat the side effects of a sedating or libido-killing antidepressant. Could be he was researching that?